While we appreciate that our book about the Canadian Auto Workers, Shifting Gears, is generating discussion and debate in labor movement circles, we cannot let Jim Stanford and Fred Wilson’s review of the book go unchallenged, as they misrepresent our key arguments and their implications for labor and working-class politics.
Before addressing the substance of the review, it’s important to point out that Stanford and Wilson’s insider status as architects of Unifor gives them a different perspective, but also a legacy to defend.
The views of union insiders are important — that’s why we interviewed many of them (including Stanford and Wilson) as part of our research. Leaders, staff, and activists provided competing insights that shaped our understanding of the union’s dynamics. However, our goal was of course never simply to echo their perspective. Rather, we put forward a rigorous analysis, based on interviews and archival research that reflected the contested nature of labor politics.
Stanford and Wilson seem to argue in their review (and elsewhere) that Unifor is the most innovative, militant, effective, and politically sophisticated union in Canada. In Shifting Gears, we acknowledge the Canadian Auto Workers’ (CAW) and Unifor’s important achievements, yet we also confront the union’s disappointments and challenges at the bargaining table and the ballot box. Contrary to Stanford and Wilson, significant elements of the union’s history depart from a narrative of singular progress: concessions are not breakthroughs, shifting to the center does not build a left politics, and partnership with employers does not signal increased militancy.
CAW/Unifor’s political history is much longer and more complex than Stanford and Wilson are prepared to acknowledge and certainly does not begin in 2013. In advancing their narrative, they misrepresent our book’s central arguments. For example, we do not argue that the union’s…
Auteur: Stephanie Ross
